Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Best choice for boken/blurring

  1. #1
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Best choice for boken/blurring

    Hi there, i was just wondering, if i want to shoot outdoors, and i want to get a nice blur background, what kind of lens is good?

    a 85 1.8?
    85 1.4?
    50 1.4?
    80-200 f2.8?

    as long telephotos give more bokeh, but yet the shorter fix lenses have larger aperture, which is actually superior?

    if the fix lenses is superior, its better to get those as u dont have to stand a mile away to take the photo at 200 f2.8 rite?

    all opinions welcomed.

  2. #2

    Default

    2.8 is ok

    for more pronounced result, anythign f2 or faster will do

  3. #3
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    so would a 85 1.4 be better than a 200 2.8? or same? or?

    Quote Originally Posted by clive
    2.8 is ok

    for more pronounced result, anythign f2 or faster will do

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Behind the viewfinder...
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    you forgot the 50 f1.8

    the 1.8 is good enuf for the extreme bokeh and DOF. Rather than the 50 f1.4 which is of coz better build but you dun really shoot 1.4 most the time so why not save the extra money?

    jst my 2 rupiahs

  5. #5

    Default

    my prev 85 f1.4
    for a head & shoulder potrait
    when focus on the eyes,
    nose & ears already slightly blurr
    very easy for auto focus to miss focus on nose
    and end up eyes & ears blurr : )

    so maybe a 85 f2.8 should do ...

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    Second the 50/1.8. Since it's so affordable, you can just buy it and sell it later for minimal loss if you find it unsatisfactory (very unlikely).

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    The aperture number alone doesn't tell the whole story. Different lenses render OOF regions differently; some are smooth-blends, some have weird shape highlights, some are just harsh (though blur). You have to dig around the net for sample pics decide for yourself.

    Also, for 85mm, f2.2-f4 would a preferable range to shoot for normal portraits. The DOF is a bit too shallow if you go below f2.0, esp if you're close. Unless you like the eyes-sharp-nose-and-ears-blur type of pictures.

  8. #8
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    how would the 50/1.8 compare to a 200mm f2.8 in terms of blurness? hmm
    50 is much shorter than 200 so is the blurness less too? it does win in the 1.8 part though


    Quote Originally Posted by imaginary_number
    Second the 50/1.8. Since it's so affordable, you can just buy it and sell it later for minimal loss if you find it unsatisfactory (very unlikely).

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    how would the 50/1.8 compare to a 200mm f2.8 in terms of blurness? hmm
    50 is much shorter than 200 so is the blurness less too? it does win in the 1.8 part though
    Just go to dpreview and check out the DOF calculator, or search on the net for the tons of DOF calculators available.

    Usually, focal length has a bigger effect in bokeh, for usual portrait usage.
    Seriously, no need to bokeh too much sometimes also lar, depends on what you are after. Ultimately, you gotta find a nice background.

    Kwanon and Nikkor 50 1.8 has good quality bokehs. More than enough for usual usage..

  10. #10

    Default

    all the lenses you mentioned have good bokeh.

    The best amongst the lot you mentioned is the 80f1.4, commonly called the bokeh champion from Nikon. If you do potraits, this is your lens.

    While all large aperture lenses can be used for background blur, some connoisseur goes to the extent of comparing the presence of doghnut rings, smoothness of the blur, etc. How technically they do it, I don'y know. But there is a difference in the aesthetic appearance of the blur.

    when I compared my 70@f2.8 between nikon 70-200vr and tamron 28-75di, the former produces blur that is smoother and pleasing. The latter seemed to produce "fake" blur. But again, I'm only bone-picking.

    Then again, we can make blur using PS but it is quite unreal.

  11. #11

    Default

    I hope this doesn't sound stupid... but what actually is "bokeh/boken"? Have come across it many times but don't know what you guys actually refer to... Please enlighten... Tks!

    Cheers!

  12. #12
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    heh its bokeh, i misspelt it as boken :P

    Quote Originally Posted by Iceman27
    I hope this doesn't sound stupid... but what actually is "bokeh/boken"? Have come across it many times but don't know what you guys actually refer to... Please enlighten... Tks!

    Cheers!

  13. #13

    Default

    Please see

    http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/active/index-j.html

    Click on the 3rd option in the manual to see focal length and aperture affect on image.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Leica lenses have the best bokeh?

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX Boy
    Leica lenses have the best bokeh?
    no... best bokeh is a totally outta focus pix!

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Behind the viewfinder...
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oeyvind
    no... best bokeh is a totally outta focus pix!

  17. #17
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    too bad it doesn't show apertures less than f2.8.

    however when i compare a 50mm at 2.8 , it seems to be less blur than a 200mm at 5.6. only 200 at f11 seems to be close...

    hmm...


    Quote Originally Posted by oeyvind
    Please see

    http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/active/index-j.html

    Click on the 3rd option in the manual to see focal length and aperture affect on image.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    too bad it doesn't show apertures less than f2.8.

    however when i compare a 50mm at 2.8 , it seems to be less blur than a 200mm at 5.6. only 200 at f11 seems to be close...

    hmm...
    50mm's bokeh is not nice... compare to 85mm or longer tele.

  19. #19

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •